Raw OCR text:
THE ASSOCIATION OF LEOAl AIO ATTORNEYS
OF THE cm OF NEW YORK. DISTRICT 65 U.>…W.
13 Astor Place. 9th Floor. New Yor11. NY 10003
(212)674-4188 i2:2l67J-5120
Brooklyn Criminal Defense Division
M E M O R A N D U M
TO:
FROM:
Brooklyn Affirmative Action Committee Members
Michael Letwin
Re: Judicial Committee on Minorities
Date: 7/12/88
Attached are copies of testimony by members of the AAC at the
recent Commission Hearings. Also enclosed is a useful statement
by Russell Neufeld regarding bail, and several articles which
discussed this and other testimony taken at the hearings.
I doubt that much will come of the testimony at the hearings, but
the Commission chairperson did say that his staff would be
contacting our Committee to set up a meeting with us regarding
our experiences.
~ CJ\-1t.1. ,~;1 :r
1,~ Wjf
TREATMENT OF MINORITY DEFENDANTS AND ATTORNEYS
in the
NEW YORK CRIMINAL JUSTICE SYSTEM
Testimony before the
New York State Judicial Commission on Minorities
Presented by Kimbe~y Detherage, Esq.
Treasurer, Association of Legal Aid Attorneys
June 29, 1988
The Association of
Legal Aid Attorneys
District 65 {UAW/AFL-CIO)
13 Astor Place
New York, NY
(212) 674-4188
Views presented in this
testimony are those of
the author only •
. ,
The Criminal Justice System is a misnomer. It is
anything but just. It is a system that is racist, indifferent
and inhuman in its treatment of minority criminal defendants
and minority attorneys. The racism is overt as well as subtle,
but without a doubt it is pervasive throughout the entire
process from arrest to trial. It occurs through the police,
court personnel, prosecutors, judges, the Probation Department
as well as many attorneys.
The criminal justice system treats the clients and the
attorneys without respect. In fact, it treats Black and Hispanic
clients like animals at times. The treatment is disparate
between white and Third World defendants. It forgets that
persons charged with crimes are still human beings. In fact,
Black and Hispanic people accused of a crime, and their families,
very often come to court and are scared and don’t know what
is happening to them. The attitude among the court personnel
is to tell these defendants and their families to “sit down,
shut up and wait.” These court personnel generally don’t
answer questions or show any compassion for clients and their
families. In contrast, white court officers will often approach
white defendants or family members to ask them why they are
in court and what they need. Minority people, however, may
sit in court all day, only to be told at the close of court
that their case was already called and that they have to return
another day. These families leave feeling uncomfortable,
angry and frustrated.
The judges often show a lack of sensitivity to the
– 2 –
problems of minority clients and their families. Everyone
is presumed guilty. Judges are concerned more than anything
with guilty pleas and “dispositions.”
In part, judges act as they do because they usually
come from a sheltered social background where they have
never interacted with Black and Hispanic people. Then they
are thrown into a situation where they decide the fate of
thousands of minority people.
The police very often have discretion about who to
arrest. Generally, officers come across many neighborhood
fights as well as marital disputes. Often, white teenagers
are taken home in these situations to their parents for
discip.line and police will attempt to mediate white marital
disputes. With Black and Hispanic people in the same situation,
police will often make arrests instead, one result of which
is that minority defendants get arrest records and their fingerprints
and photos end up in criminal justice system files.
Once police decide to make an arrest, they have wide
discretion as to whether to issue a Desk Appearance Ticket
(DAT) or to put a person through the system. If a person
is arrested it make take two to four days to see the judge.
A DAT, on the other hand allows person to voluntarily appear
before the judge on a later date.
Often, Black and Hispanic defendants are arrested on
charges of jumping subway turnstiles, driving with suspended
– 3 –
liscense, assault, unauthorized use of a vehicle. Where
these are first arrests, police officers who may issue a
DAT to a white defendant will often keep minority defendants
in jail, where cells are unsanitary and overcrowded.
In addition, the volume of arrests is determined by
overtime considerations, holidays and police promotional
exams. For example, more arrests are made during certain
times of the year because this results in more overtime pay
which will be found in officer’s holiday paychecks. Today,
not many people are in the system because officers are
studying for the sergeant’s examination.
Judges play a role in coercing plea bargains, especially
at arraignments. If a defendant maintains his innocence,
judges will often set bail. However, if a defendant wishes
to plead guilty, he or she will often be released to return
for sentencing. Ironically, then, defendants who plead guilty
may be released, while those who maintain their innocence
can remain in custody.
Prosecutors are generally unreasonable in plea negotiations,
particularly where defendants are in jail. Very often the
ADA will offer a non-jail plea to a defendant. If the defendant
refuses the plea at arraignments, the ADA will, out of
spite, ask for bail on the defendant.
The Probation Department’s pre-sentencing reports
– 4 –
consistently cast our clients in very negative light. The
reports are always filled with comments that characterize
the defendant as a recidivist; which mock the defendant’s
claims that he has no children; that focus on the allegation
that a defendant lives with a woman to whom he is not married,
that he is born out of wedlock and so forth.
The above are all subtle forms of racism. However,
every day we are bombarded with more obvious racist comments
and treatment. Judges will often make comments like:
1. “The defendant is not even normal for Black people.”
2. “It is an abberation for an adult Black or Hispanic
male not to have a criminal record.”
3. “These people are all animals.”
4. etc.
Black and Hispanic attorneys who represent minority
clients have more sensitivity to the needs and problems of
indigent defendants, by and large. Just as clients are treated
with insensitivity by court personnel, so defense attorneys
who are minorities are often treated in the same way.
Very often, judges cut off attorneys when they are
making bail arguments or discussing some other legal point.
Court officers often abuse minority attorneys who try to
approach the well area of the court; it is not uncommon for
white court officers to mistake a minority attorney for a
defendant and for them to yell at minority attorneys to leave.
– 5 –
Other examples of different treatment of minority
attorneys include:
1. When a Black attorney passes through the security
scanners, a court officer will question that attorney about
her identity, but will not question white attorneys similarly.
2. Court officers will often yell at a minority attorney
to sit down before realizing that the person is an attorney,
which is embarrassing in front of that attorney’s colleagues
and shows her client that the attorney does not have respect
in the court. (C:!j-h)U.1. 117 ~fl.,)
All of this is evidence of the idea that all white
people in a criminal court are attorneys, but that any Black
person, no matter what they are wearing, is assumed to be
a defendant. (e.g. Licitra, Levin and Detherage)fnijottut((Kf.: 1 -;,.f15tfc.yJ,t1
The criminal justice system purports to be fair, just
and equal in its treatment.
This pretention is an illusion. Unfortunately, the
only thing that minorities can count on in the criminal
justice system is being treated unjustly.
As a Black attorney, I took an oath to be fair, ethical
and compassionate. However, my clients often perceive me
to be just another part of this indifferent, inhuman and
unjust system because of the way they are treated as minority
people in the criminal justice system.
INSTITUTIONAL RACISM IN THE CRIMINAL JUSTICE SYSTEM
Testimony before the
New York State Judicial Commission on Minorities
Presented by Michael z. Letwin, Esq.
June 29, 1988
The Association of
Legal Aid Attorneys
District 65 (UAW/AFL-CIO)
13 Astor Place
New York, NY
(674-4188)
Views presented in this
testimony are those
of the author only.
You have heard many examples of the widespread and
systematic racism in the New York criminal justice system
experienced by minority attorneys, judges, court workers and
defendants.
However, these experiences only reflect the fact that
the entire relationship between the criminal justice system and
the minority conununities is based on institutional racism
of the most profound sort.
We have to begin with the recognition that the minority
communities of New York City are economically, socially and
politically disenfranchised.
Although New York City is the financial capital of the
world, and despite the development boom that feeds Manhattan’s
financial sector, the city’s minority citizens remain plagued
more than ever by sweeping unemployment, low-wage jobs,
crumbling housing, a disgraceful education system, laughable
mass transportation and grossly inadequate social services in
every other area.
In addition, Blacks and Latinos in particular cannot
venture into many parts of the city without fear of being
assaulted by whites because of their race.
All of these conditions have been dramatically accentuated
during seven years of Reaganisrn and a decade of Edward Koch’s
mayordom during which most of the limited gains made during the
Civil Rights and Black Power movements of the 1960’s have been
reversed.
The result is that there is a deep-seated and fundamental
– 2 –
hopelessness about every day life among a whole generation
of young minority people, particularly young Black and Latino
men. Not surprisingly, these conditions breed crime.
It would seem obvious that the solution to these conditions
and the crime that they breed lies in dramatically attacking
the conditions under which the minority communities are forced
to exist. Instead, the economic and political system is at
best indifferent and just as often hostile to the plight of
the city’s minority citizens. Simply put, the city’s rich
and their political representatives who control the city
government are unwilling to address the conditions in which
those communities live, in part because of the huge cost, and
in part because these conditions provide them with a low-wage
labor pool of minority employees.
It is hard to envision a more sinister institutional
racism than this approach to the city’s minority communities.
Reflecting this approach, the criminal justice system
serves as a club against minority people.
As a criminal defense attorney with the Legal Aid Society
in Brooklyn, I can confirm that the system displays routine,
institutional racism at every level.
Predominantly white police routinely assault and often
kill unarmed Black and Latino people with impunity:
Michael Stewart and Yvonne Smallwood are only two of the most
well-known examples. Defense attorneys constantly see cases
where our clients and their families have been assaulted,
– 3 –
and beaten by members of the police, corrections and other
“law enforcement” agencies. The guilty and innocent alike are
subject to arrest.
As you have heard, the treatment of minority defendants
is marked by days of pre-arraignment detention in filthy,
overcrowded .cells, often without any contact with their families;
by bail set beyond their means served in other unsanitary,
overcrowded and otherwise inhumane city jails; by racist
contempt on the part of many court personnel, prosecutors,
judges and even by some defense attorneys; by long periods
of pre-trial incarceration, threats of long sentences from
prosecution-oriented judges, all of which serves to coerce
guilty pleas from innocent and guilty non-white defendants;
and then, by all-too-often up-state imprisonment for years at a
time in facilities so terrible that white-collar defendants pay
their lawyers many thousands of dollars to ensure that if they
must be prosecuted, it will be in federal court where time,
if any, will be served in “Club Fed.”
The irony of all of this is that the criminal justice system’s
racist and inhumane treatment of minority defendants has absolutely
no impact on crime. The drug crisis is the prime example.
Crack use in particular has spread at an incredible rate,
and with it crime of all kinds has risen. In order to maintain
the highly-addictive crack habit, users commit a whole range
of other crimes, often against family members. Because of the
– 4 –
fantastic amounts of money to be made in selling drugs, growing
numbers of people are engaged selling the drug. Crack-houses have
proliferated thorughout the city’s neighborhoods. Crack gangs
with automatic weapons battle each other and the police in the
streets. The minority communities are, perhaps more than ever
before, the scene of drug-related crime and violence which has
touched the lives of virtually everyone in these corrununities.
The New York City criminal justice system cannot begin to
deal effectively with this situation, first of all because of
the nature of the drug tr~de. On an international level, the
federal government actively supports movements and governments
which run entire national economies based on the illegal drug trade:
the contras in Nicaragua, virtually every regime in South America,
and, until recently, Noriega in Panama. As long as these terrorist
governments and organizations suppress the indigenous peoples
in their societies, and make life comfortable for American
corporations, the U.S. government will back them. American banks,
in turn, live in large part off foreign loan payments from the
Third World, much of which depends in very large part on the drug
trade.
New York City, then, is reduced to going after the small-time
buyers and sellers of drugs, often through drug sweeps which
round up the innocent as well as the guilty. But most importantly,
arresting and imprisoning even the guilty has no impact on the drug
situation because while thousands of people are arrested and
– 5 –
imprisoned for drug sale and possession, there are unlimited
numbers of other people who are selling or using drugs because
it is the only way they perceive to survive in, or escape from,
the overwhelming hopelessness of their lives. New York’s draconian
drug laws, which often treat drug possession and sale much more
harshly than violent crime, do result in guilty pleas from many
defendants, guilty and innocent, who are simply scared to death
of being convicted and of spending much of the rest of their
lives in prison. These laws, however, have had absolutely no
effect on the drug crisis, for the reasons discussed above.
At the very least, the racist impact of the “war on
crack” will continue until these drugs are legalized and there
is a genuine assault on the drug crisis as the social issue that
it is.
On a broader scale, a solution to the institutionalized
racism of the criminal justice system, lies in a transformation
of the position of the city’s minority communities; not only
in its relationship to the criminal justice system, but in terms
of the distribution of wealth and power in the city as a whole.
If those in power remain unwilling to address this, the renewed
movements, particularly in the city’s Black community,
undoubtedly will.
Finally, I want to make clear that the institutional
racism of the criminal justice system does not stop at the door
of my employer: The Legal Aid Society.
– 6 –
Despite the fact that Legal Aid’s clients are overwhelmingly
Black and Latino, employees of the Society also face serious
institutional racism. There is a long and ongo~ng history of
minority attorneys being held to different standards in evaluations
and promotions than their white colleagues in evaluations and
promotion. There are very few minority supervising attorneys,
particularly in the Criminal Defense Division. The low salaries
paid to all attorneys at Legal Aid, which are lower than many
other public sector attorneys, let alone those in the private sector,
impact particularly on minority attorneys. As a result, minority
attorneys leave the Society at a rate even greater than white
attorneys. The Society’s treatment of its almost entirely non-white
support staff is even more of a disgrace. The support staff
is paid at so low a rate that even management admits it cannot
retain a sufficient number of employees to adequately perform
the everyday work of the organization. The working conditions
under which all employees, particularly support staff, are forced
to work, are pitiful: insufficient equipment, thoroughly
unrealistic workload and other conditions, some of which are
unhealthy.
These conditions not only betray a lack of concern for
the position of minority employees in the Legal Aid Society.
~ather, this situation prevents the Society from effectively
carrying out the representation of its overwhelmingly minority
clients.
The Legal Aid Society, like the rest of the criminal justice
– 7 –
system, must begin to recognize and correct its institutional
racism, an effort that the Association of Legal Aid Attorneys
·has all-too-often found the Society’s management unwilling to do.
BAIL and RACIAL DISCRIMINATION
Testimony of The New York State Association of Criminal
Defense Lawyers
before the
New York State Judicial Commission on Minorities
Presented by Russell T. Neufeld, Esq.
June 29, 1988
New York State Association of
Criminal Defense Lawyers
225 Broadway Suite 3300
( 212) 227-1127
The process of setting bail in our courts has a discriminatory
impact upon members of minority groups and poor people, and
this discrimination in bail results in further ~evestating ineqH~
ties in convictions and sentencing.
Discrimination in the bail system is the ~esult not only of
the bias of individual judges but of the very functioning of the
bail system. Since the essence of a bail system is that those
who can afford to buy their freedom get out, while those who
can’t, stay in, discrimination in the bail system is structural.
It is built into the system and can only be overcome when judges
are- conscious of the prot?lern and affirmatively;’., act to correct_–· ..
it. That is, since a thousand dollar bail may be reasonable for
a middle class person, but unreasonable for a poor person, a
court must take a defendant’s means into account when setting
bail. 1 And for those defendants who are so poor that any cash
bail is excessive, the courts should either release them on their
own recognizance or utilize pre-trial release, intensive supervision
programs to help guarantee a defendant’s return to court in
appropriate cases.
Judges have enormous discretion in determining whether a
defendant should be released on his own recognizance, whether
2 baii ~ould be set and, if so, how much. Whether someone is in
or out of jail prior to the disposition of their case is the
single most important factor in determining whether they are
convicted, and if convicted, the seriousness of the offense, and
the length of the sentence. 3 Since defendants of means are both
more likely to be released on their own recognizance, because
of greater community ties and able to make bail if bail is set,
a disproportionate number of those incarcerated prior to disposition
are poor people. And since a disproportionate percentage of
poor people are members of minority groups, a disproportionate
number of minority defendants are in our jails. For instance,
in New York City in 1987 the rate of white people in jail was
70% less than the rate of white people arrest~a.
4
Of course,
these figures may also reflect actual bias among the judiciary
in addition to the discriminatory functioning of the bail system. 5
Not only, are minority defendants languishing in jail in
disproportionate numbers, but, as a result, they are also suffering
discrimination in disposition and sentencing. As the
Columbia University Bureau of Applied Social Research study into
the question found:
Those people who must wait in jail for the
disposition of the criminal charges against them
because they’do not have enough money to purchase
their freedom are far more often convicted, far more
often given a prison term, and far more often given
a long prison term than those people who obtain their
release during this time.
This disparity in treatment between those detained
and those released is not accounted for by any factor
related to the merits of the cases, such as the seriousness
and nature of the charges, the weight of the
evidence and the presence or absence of aggravated
circumstances, prior criminal record, family and community
ties, or the amount of bail. For example, a
first offender who is detained in lieu of bail is more
than three times as likely to be convicted and almost
twice as likely to get a prison sentence as a recidivist
with more than ten prior arrests who is released •..
The differences in outcome between the two groups of
people, the detained and the released are accounted for
only by the fact of pre-trial detention itself.
6
-2-
‘ _,,.
There are several reasons for this shocking disparity.
First, the bail system works to coerce guilty pleas from those
who might otherwise have a valid defense to th~ charges against
them. Most criminal cases are misdemeanors and·approximately
one third of those are disposed of at arraign~ent through plea
bargaining. The plea-bargaining process uses a carrot and stick
approach with reduced charges and sentences as the carrot; while
the threat of staying in jail on bail is one of the sticks. Misdemeanor
defendants are routinely offered pleas to reduced
charges and non-jail sentences. These same defendants are told
that if they do not plead guilty, bail will b~ set. The mes~ag~
to poor clients is that if you plead guilty you can go home,
while if you assert your innocence, you stay in jail. So, a
significant percentage of criminal defendants who might otherwise
prevail in their cases decide to plead guilty to avoid jail.
The starkest recent example of this is the scores of transit
police arrests, all of minority group members for jostling and
sexual misconduct which were shown to have been wholly fabricated,
but, where, never-the-less, 71% of the defendants pleaded guilty. 7
Legal Aid Lawyers are constantly telling their indigent
clients that they have valid defenses or suppression motions and
advising the client to litigate the case. Frequently, due to the
threat of jail for failing to plead guilty, the client will plead,
rather than litigate. Another client, with the same charges, defenses
and suppression issues, but who has the economic wherewith-
all to post bail, is much more likely to litigate the case
and prevail or, if not prevail totally, then use those defenses
and suppression issues to obtain a better plea bargain. And
-3-
once someone has pled guilty and is arrested again they are, as
a result of the prior conviction, less likely to be released, or
to be offered as lenient a disposition as they would without the
prior conviction.
A second reason for the disparity between the disposition of
“in” and “out” cases is the greater leverage prosecutors have
over “in” defendants to exact guilty pleas. Once someone is incarcerated,
prosecutors frequently begin to stall. They don’t
answer motions in a timely fashion or provide discovery. They
are unable to proceed to hearings because of the unavailablity
of police witnesses who are invariably said to be on their regular
day off. The longer the defendant stays in jail without a
disposition, the closer he approaches the sentence offered by the
prosecutor in the plea bargain~ and the less sensible it seems
to go to trial and risk the much longer prison term that would
result with a conviction. Conversely, Judges and prosecutors,
who are also under pressure to dispose of cases through plea bargaining
rathe.c than by trial, know that an “out” defendant is
much less likely to voluntarily agree to serve a prison term,
than someone who is already imprisoned. Consequently, the plea
offers made to “out” defendants are generally less onerous than
, those made to “in” defendants.
Another reason “out” defendants fair better is that they are
better able to help themselves, their lawyers and their case,
than are “in” defe.ndants. A defendant who is out can track down
witnesses, and generally better aid his attorney in preparing for
trial. An “out” defendant can demonstrate to the court that he
is dealing with any underlying problems by entering a drug or
-4-
alcohol rehabilitation program, getting a job, or entering a
school program and, thereby, better convince a judge to give a
non-jail sentence rather than prison.
Not only do defense attorneys have a more difficult job
preparing for trial on an “in” case, but they :also have less
time to do it because “in” cases are pushed to trial before “out”
8 cases. Defendants who are incarcerated during trial are awakened
at 4:30 in the morning to be in court and generally look
poorly in addition to being less alert and helpful to counsel
than “out” defendants. Finally, the “tired” look is frequently
compounded by the difficulty of getting suitable clothes for
trial to jailed clients, thereby resulting in defendants looking
even less presentable to juries.
As judges have tremendous discretion in releasing defendants
or setting bail, the individual biases and predilictions of each
judge have a tremendous impact on bail decisions. Studies have
shown that all other factors being equal, there is tremendous
disparity between judges both in determining whether to release
9
defendants and in the amount of bail set.
In New York City the judges are greatly influenced by the
10
Criminal Justice Agency’s defendant interview report. The purpose
of the report is to recommend release or bail. One of the
primary factors C.J.A. takes into account is commuity ties. If
a defendant is employed, that is a strong basis for a recomrnen-
..
dation for release. Since unemployment rates are substantially
higher in minority corrununities, this factor works to discriminate
against minority defendants. Additionally, C.J.A. only confirms
community ties, including a defendant’s residence, through tele-
-5-
phone calls. Therefore, if a defendant doesn’t have a phone at
home, as the majority of poor defendants don’t, the report will
be marked “unverified community ties.” This w.ill frequently dissuade
a judge from releasing a defendant.
RECOMMENDATIONS
Bail reform has long been an issue in New York and there are
some i.m por t an t op t. ions th e cour t s ar1e a d y h ave i.n th· is area. ll
These include a ten percent cash bail alternative as well as pretrial
release, intensive supervision programs. Use of these
could lead to a more equitable bail system. Clearly there is
nothing in our present law to prevent judges ~rom eliminatin~racial
disparity in their bail and pre-trial release decisions.
What is needed is on going monitoring of judicial bail decisions
to insure reasonableness and non-excessive bail, and the absence
of racial discrimination. The judiciary should know that the
results of their bail decisions are being followed and that racial
disparity in the impact of those decisions will not be tolerated.
We also reconunend that judges be trained and sensitized
to the discriminatory effects of bail decisions and to the available
alternatives to incarcerating poor people.
-6-
FOOTNOTES
1. C.P.L.R. §7010(6) Ex rel. Mordkofsky v. Stancari, 93 AD
2d 826 2nd Dept. (1983).
2. C.P.L. Art. 510
3. Bellamy v. Judges, A.O. 2d Dept. 1972, Piaintiffs’ Memorandum,
Columbia University, Bureau of Applied Social Research
Study, (cited below as Bellamy).
4. According to the N.Y.C. Department of Correction, Inmate
Information System in 1987, 9% of those incarcerated by
the Department were white. According to the N.Y.S. Department
of Criminal Justice Services, in 1987 there were
273,090 adult arrests in New York City, of which 42, 175,
or 15.4% were of whites.
5. Nagel, The Legal/Extra-Legal Controversay: Judicial
Decisions in Pretrial Release, 17 Law and Society Review
3 at 508. Nagel only finds discrimination in the fact·
that “[w]hites had somewhat lower bail than blacks or
Hispanics, and they were slightly more likely to be afforded
a case alternatives.” She failed to also realize
that a $500 bail set on a poor person keeps that defendant
incarcerated while the same bail set on a middle class
defendant.means that that person is released.
6. Bellamy at 2-3.
7. N.Y.C. Transit Police Report of Lt. Dargan, 7/3/84, p.2.
8. Uniform Rules for N.Y.S. Trial Courts §125(1)(c).
9. Nagel at 506-508.
10. Nagel at 502.
11. See, Steelman, New York City Jail Crisis: Causes, Costs and
Solutions, The Correctional Association of New York, 1984
and Swirdoff, Bail Bonds and Cash Alternatives: The Influence
of Discounts on Bail-Making in New York City, Vera
Institute of Justice, 1986.
-7- —
In a survey of city law schools.
NYU nn1cs flrR in finding Jobi
(o,- graduates. Seep-,. l.
Kidder Taps Latham:
Latham & Waduns is one ol a
handful of firms Kidder Peabody
w,11 wrn to for ,a H&A wont.
Seepapl.
: Wright Censured: The
I
Jud,c,al Conduct Comm,ss,on
. censured JustJce Bruce Wright
( but four d1ssent1ng memben saod
the penalty was too hanh. See
pap 4.
Upsig Show: Harry Lops,g
drew lou of media to the
Chernow wrongful-death tnal.
Seepa,eS.
Opinion Service: On
grounds that exclusions are to be
narrowly construed. the
Southern Oistr1et orden a
medial malpnctice 1111Urance
amer to defand a doctor
attar he – convicted of
first-degree sexual abuse. SN
pap 24.
OTHERNEWS
Juclp allow.d jury to
question wh:nea—” NYU dean ~tlown to 2 candlda..___ _______ ,4
rGoleltlt la—….-a-p-p-aa-.l· p-ole-s- —· 7
PAnrnisollcda _lu rn..a_ jo_il_w_ _ ,
cM.-afoprz jne p_a_n_a_ bit-firm ,
Finley parO!a’I want mon
time fOf”~—10
Cuomo pa bHI on lawyer
referralL..——- ……. 10
Firm i- appeal In rent dispute—·-··—-·” Lepl Aid says proNCUCOr
knew of fabe arTeaU—12
DEPARTMENTS
Ana11*——–· ”
Cdlenda”—–·—ll
C-tre krNt .. I
Chan. of V..U.—–11
Cot,.ww … t—–14
FM-a,,n ha5tttparnn rTn, …. 2’t
OnP11.1’rieh 32
Opiniaft Sehl It
ScrectT_. 27
~ ….. 42
Who’• … Whom–“
CLASSIFIED ll
“-taurantGeetde _43
0 UJJIJ.
27
Partners PETtRm NDtSH (left) and MPHEHD AHHN AUSER,
members of Weil. Gotshal\ a.~sociate compensation commit·
tee. wanted to be the first to set ~tarting salaries for 1988.
Weil,G otshaSl ets
$76,000 GoingR ate
BY BARBARA LYNE
Wed. Gocshat & Manges has
couched off the annual ~tarring
SJ!arr debate by announcmg 1c
wdl pay members of the class of
, 1988 $76.000. The figure cops
lase year’s S7 l .OOO gomg race
by 7 percenc. Weal, Gorshal
also announced a restruccurmg
of compensation for alt nther
classes. with booscs ranging
from $ 15 .000 co more chan
$20.000
The increases, which rook eifect)
uly I, have catapulted che
4′>0-lawyer farm into che role
h1sroracally played by Cra·.o1ch,
Swaine & Moore. which has
been che bellwether for bigfirm
sat.mes in New York.
Three vears ago, Cravach
iwnped scarcmg salaries by
S 11.000 co $65.000. For che
past cwo years, however.
Cravach’s increases for new
graduates have been more moderate,
causmg relief ac .many
competing firms.
“Our objective 1s co be ac che
cop – co gee ouc in fronc … said
anc1crusc parcner Peter Standish.
a member ot Weil. Got·
shal’s asM>C1aces compensac,on
commmee. Added c0mm1ccee
cha, r Stephen Dann hauser:
SEEW !Jl. GOTSIW1..’ 111G13E
LIUrc:11 y
~ – ) l I.\ I I I lJHl’l
U.Sv. .T eamsters
Steeredto E delstein
Pro-government
Judge Said to Have
RelatedC ase
BY EDWARD FROST
Tk l S Ar:mm·\·, l)ftice
!.,sr wc·,k rnok lv.inr.1.L:e <>t
S,,uchern D1scr1, ·ui,s co bv·
pa.s, rhe lnm:rv ,rm.,llv us~d
rn .1s11l!n 1uJg,, rnd t’iit:d ,rs
ma.ss,ve civil r.i, · ct-eroni.: casc·
.,i,:.11nsc che Tcar·-,_r,rs b~fore .1
1 J~dge w,dt:ty· · ,·1ewed JS pro-
1;overnmenc.
• Usong .1 local ruk i:u1d1ng
case ass1gnmenrs. prosecurnrs
s.i.1d the su1c alleging Mafia
domination oi che lncernanonal
Brotherhood nf Tr:-amscers
should be heard bv U .S Dis·
mer Judge David Edelstein because
1c as related co J. comparatively
m,nor civil racketeering
case alrr:-ady pendong on h,s
court.
The prior case. nam,n,I? two
officials of Teamsters locals –
neither of whom 1s a Jdendanc
in che new suar – 1s men·
t1oned only chree times 1n 290
pages of documencs tiled wich
che new Teamsters suit. One nt
the mencwns as 1n a foocnore.
The seemingly slim connecc1on
becween che two ,ases has
llte l1.s. Attornc:y·s office
asked that its suit against the
Teamsters be assigned 10
Judge DAVIDE DELSltlN.
i raised che question of whether
prosecutors maneuven:d en
place a ma,or case in rhe hands
nf a 1udge perceived as friendly
co their cause.
8,Jth Ass1scanc U.S Atcurney
R.1ndy Masero. chc lead
prosecutor on che new Te-am,
seers su1c. .ind a clerk tor Edel;
ceon denied th.it 1ud~e shnpp1ng
by prosecumrs ,, pombh,.
! 1n this cast: or any other.
Arrnrd1n1? ro chc local rule.
; ic is up to” a Judge to decide
whether che link ,uggesced by .1
SEET EAIISTDIS1,’ 111G31E
JudgesF ear Te.sJifyinAg boutR acism
BY SHAUN ASSAEL
The chairman of J pa:1el
probing che creacmenc of minoric,
es on che courts said lase
week he has been forced ro hold
clandesc1ne meetom:s with
Judges who fear rec;liac,on ,f
chev :est1fy about racism in rhe
state 1ud1C1al syscem.
Franklin Williams. who
chairs the: New York Stace Jud,.
c1al Comm1ss1on on Mono;,t,es,
said Judges have cold him they
are afraid chev m11:hr nm be reappo,
nced or· pro.:noced 1r’ rhe\·
go public with stones ,if pre1u·dace.
Concern about beong oson
hos office at 270 Broadway co·
handle calls from Judges afraid
crac1zed bv their brethren also
i prevented· some 1udges from
cemfy,ng., he added. , ot openly cooperac,ng. he said.
Maccers have grown so serious.
‘”Friends of cwo decades say chey
won’t even testify in che presence
oi my staff … rhe chairman
“This has floored me and
shocked me.”· Williams said on
an 1nrcrv1ew on June ,o as the
comm1ss1on held a second dav
of public hearongs in ManhJt·
can
I .1dded.
Becac.sc the commissions oftices
.ir~ located an the same
building as the Office of Court
Adm1niscracwn·s headquarters.
W1l11ams said many pocencial
witnesses refuse co visit him our
oi tear >f beong seen by OCA
personnel. He has been forced
co mee! l’.ldges ,n resrauranrs .
and msrall a pnvace phone line ;
:’.iilton W il11ams. the deputy
ch,ef .1dm1niscranve 1udge for
New Yock C1cy Courts, onsisced
chat no 1udge would face recal1·
.1tion tor resnfy1ng before che ,
comm,ss,on. “l would hope chac
.my member of che judiciary. by
che very nacure oi their pos1·
non. w,ch rhe masses relvong on
chem for reiiei. would .i.lwavs
SEEJ UDC:EFSU lt. 1’111G31E
\finoritles commission
chairman FMNKUN WIL·
UAMS”:l llis has floored me
and ~hocked me.”
ates
nc Jre going
1wyers. sa,d
,et 1ncreJSes
re-Jr \X’e’re
· rxplJt m·d
l.,r~e trrms
J,155J.S tht’\’
~school. He
t’ters co sru,
r’ rhe dJSs
drreccor 1)t
pm·are secs
rncervrew
·nmenr Jobs
ser sard, 24
,scrrcc accor
·n Counsel’s
,c agencies.
be closer co
·rcenr overI
begrn law
,rons Dean
ulO! has had
,r paymenrs
,s H0.750
wr ,it’ IJw
,I programs
1s Council.
11J rhar .tpols
chis year
:er rhis will
,on or nor.
Recencly I
>alias where
law schools
g over-full
raised chei r
asked how
ir wa1r lists
raised cheir
~
yourself co
‘d favorite:
.,.enerable
·preciaced
:r recom’
quarcer
•ng more
‘,Js divr,
c Jowdy
r al., has
rhe rage
hildren·s
‘”‘e plan.
nd hold on
oes our on
ker, which
,n updated
,mporcanr
;horcfall in
udgrng by
!led such a
I might be
worch rhe
::J
MANHATTAN LAWYER• JULY 5 – JULY 11, 1988
TeamsterCsa seS teeredb yG overnmetnot E delstein
CO~TINUEO •IIOM •RQ”,- P<IGE
pl,11nt1ff 1s Hrtln!,! tnrn.J/!h tor him ro keep
borh ,L11t5. EJdsrcin Jc’Cc·prl’d rhe ‘lew
Tc:.1msrc:rcsa se·o n June 28. rhc:J ,I\· ,. w,b
tiled. ·
“Ir’s nor somt’ch1ni: rh.11 \\t’ u,u!J h,\\c·
d11m· Jn\’Ch1nc .1bour
0
• • \l.1srro ,.11J. [,kim:
rn s (ltrk. · ,\f 1ch.1d “h\. .,i:rt·c·,! · 1 r’,
cht· 1ud~cs s.iy-so. noc rht· L’.S Arwrnt
·v·s … h,. s.111.l.
Bur one wh,ct cnll.,r trunin,d Jett.’OSt’
IJwvcr. who requc:src-d .rnonvmin. V.JS
lt-ss u:rrarn.
·11 1s nbv,nusl\’ ,it· ,·,mcern rn rht L’.S
Arrorner s or’tice ·wh.ir 1uJg,. /!t’CS J n:.illy
b1i: case:,” rhe ,morney s.11d. “It’ there’s J
wa\’ ro do ,r w1rh1n rhe rules. I Jon ·r rh,nk
rh;c che U.,S . Accorney·s ot’tice ,s ,l!1>1nc~o
ignore ,r.
EDELSTEAIN T OUGJHU DGE
Detcnsc l,1wvers Jt’Slr,bc EJc:ls[l’lll JS
on,. ,>i thl’ tou,cht·r .ind mllrt’ l’rn-.a:”‘:l’rnlTIL’O1t
u<.J.cc1sn Fiile)’ Squ.1re. Hl’ ,.,·a.,1 pro1nct
·d r,> thl’ b(‘n,h tn !I.J5 I .itter \\’ork,
n.l.! ,,·,L·n )’c~1rs1 ;,r thl’ Dq·.1rrt11L·1H,, t’
llhtlll’ 1n 111brsa nl!111lt!r ,,m ,iss1sc.,nrl . S
:,rrnrnc1· in rhl’ :-i,,~ ch~rn D1’tr!l·c co ,IS’1SC·
.,nr L’.S . . ,rrornl’\’ \!ener.d.
In rhe· 1,ros he· l’rc·\!Jt·d ,n·,-r cht’ .~m·l’tnmL
·nr’, m:1r.Hhon hur ul111n.,r,·h· .,banJ111wJ
.Htl’mpr Ct> br,:.tk ur IB,\( I~ ,I c t\’,l
Jntttru,r .1n111n. F/.r .\111,n,,m Lm ;..,· :eporctd
1n llJ~2 r~1r rhmu,chour che 1,vt”;
tr I :tc: ot’ rh,. CJS, EJl’lsrem ruled riir rhe
i:o”ernmenr 1n –i ,it’ -9 ,oncesced mnc,
ons .inJ susr.11ntd (,U pt:ru:nr o( rhc: go\’ernmenr
s ob1ecnnns JS oppmr:d co tewer
rhan , percent of IBM’s.
In a. more recenr criminal case. Edc:1-
srern sided 11nrh rht.’ i:overnmenr when
prosecurors balked ar h.iv,ng c,> nor,iy
lawyers represennni: unind,cced suspects
rhar rnformancs were beinc used co ,n·;esngare
che,r dic-nrs. •
In 1985. Edelstein ruled rh.1r .1 dt!ense
lawver 11.•hosed 1<:nr had been inJ,ccc:d
couid bt: ,d,p<l(.’n.1ed r.,r <Jlll’Slll>n1n,:
.,bnur rhe ,ourtl’ nt’ h,s It-es. Th.,r ,kc “‘”n
“.IS rl’,·t’tst’d on .tppt:.11
RULE1 5: TRANSFEORf REUl’EDC ASES
Souchnn D11rrr,r Ruh: ! ~ n·qu,rc, .,
f”J.l1nt11fC t) noct’. ,10\’ rd.1Ct’U( l\’,I l.lSl’S
penJin,c w1rhin che J”mcr whc:n ttl,n.c .1
ct I’d suit. Th” nt’wer c,15t: 1s retl-rrl’J to rhl’
n,J ~t o\’ersce in.i: rhe nlJ,·r .1,r 111n. .ind
rha; 1ud!!e Jeudcs wh .. rhi:r ro kc:(:p rht·
new ,.15c or send rr rn thL· lom:r1·. int,>rm.
illv known .15 “thee wheel.” ·
\Vhen t<:Jtral rms<‘curnrs f,k-J su1r
Juni: 28 .iga,nsc the lnrernat1<JnJI Brnrht:r·
t’unds to parricul.ir :nvesrmenc comp.1-
ntt’S
.\n ,nd,crmL·nr rc·rurne<l 111 ,\pnl
,h.trl!t’J rhr cwu mL·n “·,ch (ur:sptrtn.i: ,,.
, 1ul.1tcc’ hl’ R,1tkctl’~:rl nth;c·ncc,J .ind Cor•
rupr Orc.1n1z.1r111n.-s’ .ct. The: c.bl’ Wt’nt
11ccd1t1L ‘ “hc:d .,nJ 11..,rs. ,nJumJ·; .,;.,n.:rn·c!
r,, [ddsre,n ·
A rl’IJteJ C1l’d su1r w.15 fikJ h, rhe :.:u,··
l’rnml’nt on ,\l.1\ 11. Th.tr ,JS<‘ ·Jlso ~·tnr
rhruu..:h chc-lotcl’r·; ..n J wJs .15’11:0t:dr o
luJci R,ch.ird Daronco. Afrer Damnco
·.,, ,L,· :nurderc,d :’-I.iv 21. rh<: civil case w.1.1
ri:asst,l!nt’J rn JuJge Vinctnr BmJerick.
On Junl’ I. rhe suit was rr.msterred co
Edl·bce,n w,rh his consenr.
S,,J” .,rrnrnev J” Ann HJrris, who rep-
Sold i.Jenz Di .n..i.c t Rzt ie 15′ d<!fi’U, !S related casesa s
those that. among other things. present common
cJue,Wionqs/ !cu,· m zc~/cu.o:rt .c ui,efom thes ame
source or suhstctJlfialfsri milar tmn:.:.c1ct1.~0. ·1 z..
h•••d ,,, Tc.,rn,ru,. rlw C..11nrn1,St,1o1111L ,
Ce1s.1: -..:nsrr.1., nd t’i 1ndi\ 1du,tl Jl’tc-t1d.1nr,.
thi:y nnrnl rh.,r rile· ,,LsLw· .,s rl’i.trcd
to l .S. t. /….,,11,:,:.,11d.\l.,/.,•,t, u,v,,d, r.u.:kt··
re<.:r1n.!,,:. :.L”i.<1.1: ,:,1111t\\r, :n ot”f1t…1.1obt Tt:.im·
Stl’rS io … il., ,n :\’l’w York.
f..,,,g h.u.l been rrJnsterrl·d w fakhrt·in s
..:ourr Jusr four w<:eks earlrc,r under., sc1pul.
Hmn .1ppnl\:ed bv deti:n,t· l.1wyers .1nd
M.1Sm>. who supc-rv1scs rht’ JSs1sranr U.S.
.1ccorneyh andlin.c the· Lun,Lc! JSe. The: Jerendanrs
– John M.1honc:yJr . secrccaryrre-.
isurer of Local 808, which n:prc:senrs
United P:ircel Service workers .. rnJ John
L.mg, secretary-rrea.surer of Teamsters LocJ.
J ll04. which represenrs Long lsl,rnd
R.iil Road workers – are accused of raking
kickbacks in return for sreering union
r,·w,1r, \l.1h1111t·,1.1·. 1dc he rr.,,,.,;_.rr o Edd,
rl·1n. rt..·quL·irn! t,: rhc: .i.. :,1\ rnenc. d1J
nur :-.c..Trunn u~u.d .1r rhl· rrn:1.
·11111,1kc:lsn.1ro t,c:11St:l·nr , ,lllill11l tkc·
rh,11 c,> i:o ‘” clw ,.tmc· Jude, ::1J rht’\’ do
rhJr m;,c,neh· rherc:. JS l,;nc: .h rhc ;i\d
.1l11on ,s w,;rd-riir-wnrd rc:.,ceJ co thl’
cr1min.1I, l(tl<JO.,. Harris sa,d.
The ct\’il c’;ISc.1.-c.1rnscL inc .,nd M.,huney.
wh,ch h.1s ~n sr.iyed pi:nJtni,: thl·tr
a1m1nal rrral rh,s till. Sl-eks ., rerm.,nenr
1n1uncr1on proh1b1rini,: chem from parr1(1-
pat1ng ,n che atfa1rs ot’ che loc.tls .ind Jisgorgc:
mc:nr of chtir illegal protics.
MJSrro s.i,d rheir case .iml rhc: Tc·.1msrers
su,r 1)\crlapped on le.c.d qu’c-snons
.1nd tanual issues, anJ becJus,: boch in””‘
“”J rhe union, tell wirhin rhc· bi,unds
11tR’ uic I~ The rule Jefinc:s rcl.ir,·d u,
·” ciHhe clue. Jnt1111i: nrhc:r ,ti,n~
J’rt·~<·nr 1,,,t1n1mon 4ut·,rion, ,,t L,,, .l:
Lit:’. 1,r .trist· from rhl· ,,tmc..· ,11t1rc..l· ,•r ,u
,c.,nr,.dl\’ ,1md.1r rr.111>C.tt<LH h
THET EAMSTEARRS ES UED
L.,r \\c·d:s ><Ill .1i.:.11nscrh ,· T,·.,11hc,··
t,kJ rn L’ S. Am,rnc·)· RuJ11lph lrnd,.,:
se,·k, rn ousr .,m· union h11.1rJ nwmb,·
ct1nl’ttted ,it racker(‘er,n,c .ind ·’l’l'<111tr
rn:>Cl·t· co 1>vl’rser the union·s <>(X’r,1r1111
.,nJ dr:an up ,rs t:lenmns.
In ,1 11 ,-p.1,i:e cnmrl,1inr . .1 1115-p.1,1
rnl’mnrandum ,it law .mJ .1 – 2-ra.i:c: Jc:d.
rac,on by ,\fJSrro. prosr:curors “ucl,n,
mnre chan J down uvd .ind t’rrm1n,1Ip m
t·cuc,uns mv,,lv,nc rhe un111n. Ch,
.im,ini: rhem were.cht C.,>mrn1-s1″n’· ‘”
in wh
0
1,·h rhe r.1nkm,c boss,., ut’ ~c·w Ynr~
f1vt’ ,\l.it’i.i families were c11n\’1\’rtd. ,11
rhr: Gl’novese !’Jmil;- CJse. which pr,
sl’ntl’d L0 1·1den,t· 11f m”b ,ntlul’nct·
In .1nnnunun.i: rhe ~uir. (iiuli,tn1 ,.,
rh<:c urrl’nr T,·,11n,cc:rsl, ·.,dt•r\ ‘h,l\t· ,I,.,
,,rru.1111n’ <>thrnt.r:1 1c .1kcc: hc·1rt tn1111l,1.,,
lr11m the· :’-l,1t’ia.:.
The: p.,pers 1n the T<:amHl’rsc ‘J.SLc,’ c,
nnh ti,ur msr.inccs s,ncl’ 1•r- when rl
inc:·rn.,rn,nal uninn rt:r,<lrted corrupr1c
.,s ., h.,,,sr i,r 1mr,<1sm,.i1: rrusteL·shrp 1111
li11..1LO ni: ut rhe four ,nscanec:s ,nvuh,
J..,,·,11/,; ()8, rhe L’PS loc.il where John :’-l.
hont’v Jr. ,, Sl-CrecJr}·-rreasure. r
·Jn rl1.1r .:,lSl’, 1mmediarc:lv Jtrcr rh
cemporar\’ rrusrt-cshrp. rhc Stl~ ot’ rhe rrt
rrusr, … sh1p union head ,15sumed powt·
.ind h.1, >1nce bec-n rnJicred for labor r.1ck
c’tl’i:rtnc. · ,\f.ismi’s Jeclarar1on sa.,d.
In .1~1 nrc:r.·1ew’.. \lasrro .1rgued char rh,
Lnn.i: .mJ Mahoney (ase was sm>n,i:ly n:
l,,rt-d ro the l.irger Teamsrers suit bc:c.1u,,
,r \h11u;s Jn “1mporranr example of ch,
1:1d11rrln’ remedy local rnrrurnon.”
JudgeFs earT estifyinAgb ouRt acismin theC ourts
CONTINUED FROM FRONT PIIGE
have the backbone co speak out,” Jud.i:e
Williams sa1J ,nan interview.
BIASA ll£Gm ta SEVERALL£ VD.S
The rnmm1ss1on was chartered by
Chief Judge Sol Wachrler of the Court of
Appeals in January co recommend ways to
eliminate racial bras rn the courts. More
than l ~O wrcnesses scarew,de have cesrified
before rhe ..:ommission. which is nor
expected ro release a final report unnl
1990.
Among rhe alleganons made during
IJSr week’s hearings were rhese:
• James Morton, a clerk m che Civil
Branch of scare Supreme Courc in rhe
Bronx, cemtied char courr ofticers have
·volunrarily segregated themselves.” esrablishrng
separate locker areas ior blacks.
Hispanics and wh11es. In Jn inrerv1cw,
Louis Fusco Jr., rhe court’s .idminiscrarive
1udg~,’ said rhe allegar1on was -rocally untrue.
• A black temale court officer claimed
she was demored .ifrer bem.i: elev.ired ro
l’.apr.1rn parcly bec.iuse whrre ,>t’ticl’rs
launched a perinon dril’e seekin.c .in 1nvesr1gac1on
of how she gor promored. The
officer, Vivian S,nglc:wn. mid rhe panel,
“The ma1omy of wh1te court <1ffict’rs. ire
from Long Island. There’s a fear rhey teel
[.1bour rhe City and rhe people who live
here) which becomes anger.”
• Some judges and attorneys rourinely
discounr the rtmmony of blacks and Hispanics.
Jeanne Thelwell, dcpury ,ounsel
for rhe scares Office of J\lt-nral He.ilrh and
a memberofrhe Women’s Bar Asst)CiJtJOn
of New York Scace. cold che panel: “When
I used co be asked if I had good wrcnesses
for my cases, I began co undtrsran<l I was
being asked 1f I had white wrcnesses …
CONCEXNASB OURT lTAI.JRlOVNO ICED
During the he-Jrtn/ls, clerks Jnd court
officers who recounreJ srories ,>t J1scrim1·
nacron roucrnely expressed (oncern rhJr
their cesr1mony might hurt rhe,r chances
ofpromorion.
Bur Chairman W1ll1ams .1ppe.1redm osr
rroubled by rhe 1udges wh11 d10Sl’ tll k~p
rhe1r concerns prrvarc. Joseph Will,ams.
Jn elecred scare Supreme Court 1umce
from Brooklvn. reSC1iied rhac ,1ppo,nced
justices who Jo nor ha”e the secucrcy ot’
10-vear eleccrve ri:rms “rhink rhc\·re rn
jeop-.irdy .1nd chere will be recJlia·c,on 1f
chey resell)’ …
“Is rhar rhe .umnsphne ot’ nur courcs:”
Ch.11rman \Xlilli.ims .1SkeJ.
Replied Judge \X!ill1ams: “Thev prob.ibly
dnn·r believe the chief judge is rncour,1g1ng
chem …
Chiet’Judge Wachtler said in an inrt’r,
·,ew char rhe tear l)f rerriburion ,unoni:
1udges 1s “mosr unfortun.ire anJ n:.crur~blc.-.
. I don·r know who wnulJ cx.1,t
char kind nf rerriburion. Ir (ercainlv
wouldn’t come from anyone rn the hicrarchial
1udic,al scrucrure because we are the
uncs who .1re most .1nx1ous anJ inreresred
,n derermrnin,c where rh,s b,as exists. rt
indeed ,r J,X”s. If we didn’t wanr people ro
come forward. we: wouldn’t have formed
[rhe panel] .1nJ urged rhe public hearings.
Civil Cnurr Judge ~fargJrer Taylor.
who s,rs ,n Housing Ciurt in Manhattan,
.1lso discussed rhe pressure on jud.!,.’CrSo
conform. C.1ll1ng rhe Civil Cciurc system J
“d1crJt11rsh,p,. . she said: “Ir is made dear
ch.H ch~ .1cmosphere and perception ,s. if
yt)u arc cmic.11 [of rhe sysrem). you v.•on r
be [ele”ared to Jnj .icnng Supreme Court
1usr,ce. wh,c·h ,s rhe goal ol most people in
mv (ourr. Ii \’DU don’t evict or conv,cr,
y<;U Wt)n C be looked (Jn favorably. –
Scare Surrc:me Court Jcisr1ce Israel Rubin,
clw .1dm1n1srrat<Jort ‘rhe Civil C(Jurr.
,.uJ ,n .,n 11irc·r.·1L·w”l . rh,nkJudge T.1ylor
1, dorng .i J,sservr((: co .ill hcrcolkagues ,n
service now 1n rhe Supreme Court.”
Thi: ma1llricv ,if w,rncsses at chc he-Jr
ings. whu:h w~re aJvcrcrscJ 1n subwe1ys
ll!fol’ builJincs .ind courrh,>uses. seem!:’,
~o be .ircorn~vs Jnd courr l’mpli)\’l'<‘S
rTht·1r resr1mo~y rt:vc:alt'<l a percepr1u1
ch.it racism in chc rnurcs 1s sysrcm1c –
fr(Jm the u>urt ofticc:r who mistakes J Hisp.
1nic lawyer for a Jc-ti:ndanr co J 1uJ.ce
wh,1 cells a Jeti:ndanc .it a had hearrm:.
“You shouldn’t have commirced che cr1~e
,fvou Jidn’r wane robe in 1ad.”
·chairman Williams said, “Based on
rhe resrimonv co dace. I can’r sav rhe bias
level ,s crir1~al . . bur ,c 1s cie;ir ro us
rh<:rt rs .i problem in rhe courrs .rnd re is
much more rhan perceprron. Ir rs rc:al:ry.. .
Mi Iron Williams s.ud he.-was mv1rc.-de n
.mend the he-.1rings bur declined. ·rw
made my “iews known.” sa,J rhe CHy·s top
judge. retemng ro pasr .icknowledgmenrs
,)f che perception of br.u rn rhe courrs. “I
want ro ler che people who usually Jren·c
he-.1rdb e he-.1rd.”
The pane! heard a wrde arrar of suggl-S·
c1ons for .1ddressrng che problem, indud-
10,1:c:r eating inexpensive.e-anng and parking
facilines ior poor people who nir<:n
sp,:nd <‘nrire d.iys in ,·ourr bu1ld1n1,:s·.
1>pr:n1ng day-cJrt: ci:nrt·rs ,n rhc cuurr,:
.ind ,m reasing che number ,>t· bdmgu.11
<:mplo\’ees. …J
. “‘ bespectacled rotuna
log-control officer. He
ed to have been a police
j, but he could not pass
)t be t ramed to arrest a
:arm 1er told the group.
· re disappointed about
Y you older people who
much to do and want to
.uspects. I hate lo be the
t, but we’re going to dis-
The New York Times/Peter Fl’ftd
Keyser, W. Va .• talking
ight, at the Port Authorar
in a row. “She discovers
mgs, and we learn about the
. uncommon, officials of the
for strong attachment! to be
tween the children and their
)Ut 60 percent of the visitors
d back by the families.
Yoder, a host from Hanly,
ed a touching anecdote about
1gster. Last summer, she
nat one of her former Fresh
:en. Jemel Cottingham, was
ibout dropping out of school.
iaded him. with the coopera’
parents. to spend this school
er house and attend the local
h school. Jemel returned las
1s home in the Flatbush area
yn. Ms. Yoder said, “more at
himself and ready to return
,chool.”
st the good old golden rule,”
d. .. I hope that somebody
.t,he same for my kids if they
oornooo \…1 l1U\.. “._. • .._ .. •~o~, •••- •
eye, to the volunteers. He told them
that for $75 they could get together
with their neighbors and buy a personalized
neighborhood Cnrne Watch
street sign from a company m California.
‘McGruff Is a Business’
”We would have liked to have gone
with McGruff,” he said. referrmg to a
cartoon dog in a trenchcoat and
“But 1t ·s an awtully expem,1ve prugram
to get into,” Mr. Cormier said.
“McG ruff 1s a business.” Chief DeGrace
added with disdain.
At the end of the meeting. 16 people,
most of them older women, signed up
to part1c1pate. Before they did. a man
in th audience raised a question. “If
you· a quiet neighborhood.” he
aske an you go to the next street
ov
New York Panel ears Charges %~m4ia’!si fn, J_ud,icfia lS ystem
New York City judges. lawyers and
court officers portrayed a Judicial system
permeated by bigotry and racism
at hearings last week before a state
commission investigating racial bias in
thecouns.
Testimony before the New York
State Judicial Commission on Minorities
ranged from accounts of black and
Hispanic lawyers being mistaken for
defendants and subsequently harassed
by. court officers, to harsher bail and
sentencing decisions being imposed on
min<>rity-group members.
“The criminal justice system is still
rolling along as if it were in the 18th
:entury,” said Justice Kenneth N.
8TOwneo f State Supreme Court in
s. who spoke with quiet anger of
the injustices he said he had witnessed
as one of 77 blacks among New York
State’s 1,161 judges.
CommJssloa Created ln January
Finding ways to increase the numbers
of minority judges, lawyers and
court officers is one of the mandates of
the commission, which was created
last January by Chief Judge Sol Wachtler
of the State Court of Appeals at the
request of the New York Coalition of
Blacks in the Courts.
The commission, which has already
held hearings in Albany and Buffalo, is
also studying the extent to which minorities
fail to use the courts in seeking
redress for grievances because of a
lack of confidence in the fairness of the
courts. The commission will issue its
findings and recommendations in
January 1990.
The commission held hearings
Wednesday at the State Office Building
in Harlem and Thursday at the World
Trade Center.
Blacks and Hispanics make up about
20 percent of New York State’s population.
but account for less than three
percent of the state’s 50,000 judges and
lawyers, the Metropolitan Black Bar
Association said. The number of As1an
and native American Judges and lawblacks
and a fifth of all whites believed
that the judges and courts in New York
City favored whites.
“Our court system has not convinced
mmonties that they will get their day
in court,” said Judge Yvonne Lewis of
Brooklyn Civil Court.
A Lack of Minorities
Minorities are poorly represented
among non-Judicial personnel, a clerk
in Brooklyn Supreme Court, David Correa,
testified. In Brooklyn, where approximately
20 percent of the population
is Hispanic, three out of 280 court
‘We have made it
to the door but
not beyond the
reception area.’
officers are Hispanic, Mr. Correa said.
The situation is the same wnh courtappointed
lawyers. Mr. Correa sa1d,
adding that m Brooklyn 12 out of almost
500 such lawyers are Hispanic.
Archibald Murray, the executive director
of the Legal .Aid Society. said
that judges often address black and
Hispanic Legal Aid lawyers by their
first names. and their black cltents are
often called “boy” or “girl.” ‘
Also testifying was Justice Bruce
Wright of State Supreme Court in Manhattan.
who said that blacks are
largely excluded from “the mighty law
firms” that serve as breeding grounds
to.judges.
“In order to be appointed, apparently
you have to know somebody. and we’re
not the kind of people who frolic in the
Governor’s Mansion, and Gracie Mansion,”
he said.
yers is statistically insignificant, the GIVEH APPYS UMMERM EMORIES:
association said.
“We have made it to the door but not GIVE TO THE FRESH AIR FUND
beyond the reception area,” said Ilene
Milett, testifying on behalf of the Asneeas
al uuLLu111 1…u11::.LnuL1:: taxes. Wlltcn
are not levied evenhandedly on the …
basis of neutral prmc1pals but are required
from developers on a case by
case basis.”
The definition of a related amentty
was “one which addresses a need direc_
tly ansmg from the project. i.e ..
which has a nexus to the project. and
which is ident1f1ed during the environmental
review Process; or is otherwise
specified by law.”
‘Disincentives to Development’
Although the study was prompted bv
a concern thac community boards were
abusmg the process of bargaining with
developers. the committee found that.
no one was blameless.
“Arguments have been made to us
that elected offi~\als can properly be
given responsibihty to require unre- ·
late~ amenities. though unelected community
boards should be kept out,” the ·
report said. “The reason given is that ·
elected officials are accountable to the
voters and can be controlled at the
polls. –
“We believe. however, that deals ·
made by elected officials show all the.
infirmities” – that is, “distortion of ‘
decision making, ad hoc and uneven- :
handed taxes or fees, distortion of•’
spending priorities and capital budgets,
creating disincentives to development.
“Elected officials, moreover. who ·
could point out to the vocers-their role
in obtaining the unrela’41d amenities 1f ;
anything may be under gaiater p~s- ·,
sure to make such deaJs.” ·
For Earlier Involvellleat
As for the community boards, the report
said, they “should be given the opportunity
to redirect some of their
energies” by participating in the initial
phase, when the scope of an env1ronmental-
1mpact statement is being
determined.
“Early involvement of communny
boards.·· the report said, “will genera
Hy reduce any mystery surrounding
the plans of developers and central
city authorities and reduce the likelihood
of confrontations and consequent
delay.”
Asked about the prospect of increasing
the boards’ role. Mr. Koch said, “I
don’t have any negative responses. but
I don’t have sufficient information to
accept it.”
Instead, he said, he “wouJd have to
be guided” by the chairwoman of the
Planning Commission, Sylvia Deutsch.
Speaking generally about the report
after it was delivered to him last
Wednesday at City Hall, the Mayor
said, “Its contents will be given the
most thorough consideration.” But, he
added. it was too early to say when any
guidelines might be advanced.
The committee was headed by Sheldon
H. Elsen. Its members were Merrell
E. Clark Jr .. David C. Condliffe.
Kathleen lmholz. Mark A. Levme, Jerome
Lipper and Hector Willems.
sociation of Black Women Attorneys.
A poll conducted earlier this year by
The New York Times and WCBS-TV
News found that almost half of all
LEGAL
UNITED STA TES BANKRUPTCY COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT 0t= NEW YORK
····-·-·-···············-······—–··–·-···-·—····-·········-X
IN RE: F\.ORENCO FOLIAGE
SYSTEMS CORPORATION, d/b/a
OISPU Y ARTS, CASE NO. lll-11010(C!}
ts Schoolwork to Music “DEBTOR.” ;
···-···············-·····—-··-······–·····——–·–······· X
NOTICE 0t= PAIVA.TE SALE
TO: ALL CREDtTORS, SECURITY HOLDERS, PARTIES IN INTEREST ANO INTEA!ST!D flUIICffA.SERS
– . . . • •• ‘””~ .~ …….. !he DEBTOR ‘”‘OP
l
}
~-~.
~
~.~~~, ..
.
rt·\ 7
/ :-;.i ,..,•
._. :,•.;· ;rI
~
Saveupto~O
z-MadeE than Allen luxury Chairs.
tow to add that extra chair to your home. Georgetown Manor offers
Y to choose a very special collection in a select group of beautiful
the meticulous tailorin~ that Ethan Allen is famous for. Thev are
:\.
~~. trb,e ~ 1’t: I
Courts Biased,
State Panel Told
Blacks and other minorities are not receiving
fair treatment in the courts of New York because
of racist attitudes and structural flaws in the svstem,
witnesses yesterday told a special judidal
panel.
The witnesses, appearing at a public hearing of
the ~ew York State Judicial Commission on ~fi.
noritiP.s at the Harlem State Building, expressed a
variety of concerns, ranging from unfair sentencing
practices by judges to racist attitudes among
those working in the courts.
·’There is a subconscious racist attitude among
some of the officers,” said Veronica Singleton. a
court officer in Manhattan. “They make racist remarks,
and call people derogatory names without
realizing what they just said.”
Ll
Russell T. Neufeld of the New York State A.ssocition
of Criminal Defense Lawyers called for a rearm
of the bail system, including 10 percent cas_\l
ail alternatives and supervised pre-trial release.
”Discrimination in the bail system is the result
not only of the bias of individual judges but of tbe
very functioning of the bail system,” Neufeld said.
“Since the essence of the bail system is that those
who can afford to buy their freedom get out, while
those who can’t stay in, discrimination in the bail
system is structural.”
The 16-member commission was appointed last
January by Chief Judge Sol Wachtler to determine
if min on ties are receiving fair represent.ation in
the jucL-_.J .l system.
The ::ommission’s mandate includes determining
the extent to which minorities under-utilize
the court system, reviewing current hiring practices
to determine if minorities are fairly represented
in the court system and evaluting J’J’lCbods
used to select judges.
Herb Jones, assistant supervisor court reporter
in a Manhattan court, saw ~he public hearinp as a
step in the right direction and said he hoped it
would encourage young blacks to pursue their educations
with the aim of getting jobs in the courts.
The commission has set a second hearing from 9
a.m. to 9 p.m. today at Two World Trade Center.
– Curtis L. Taylor
Man Pleads Guilty
In Death of Guard
A Harlem man pleaded guilty to second-degree
murder yesterday stemming from the fat.al stabbing
of a security guard in a downtown department
store last December.
Joseph Gooden, 38, of 1825 Madison Ave.,
agreed to plead guilty if prosecutors recommendi!!!d
the minimum prison term of 15 years to life.
On Dec. 1, Gooden argued with Bobby Jenkins,
44, of 305 W. 143rd St., after Jenkins, the unarmed
security guard at Modell’s at 280 Broadway, accused
him of attempting to shoplift. Police said
Gooden pulled a knife and warned Jenkins that he
would return.
The next day, Gooden came back.. to da store
and stabbed Jenkins in the chest, neck, bais and
head during a struggle between two racb oi abirta.
During the a~ a byst.ander ran from the
store and called over two mounted police””elicers
from. Ci_tyH 8!_1P ar~ ~~ ~ed.b ut.~ ~
ALAA Roots -- An Unofficial Site 